1

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction
A proper and well-organized learning environment allows
students to focus and encourage them to study explore.
Learning environment refers to the diverse physical
locations, contexts, and cultures in which students learn
according to the Glossary of Education Reform. It involves
the social interaction between individuals whose goal is to
learn and develop their capabilities.
Some factors such as acoustics, lighting, temperature,
color, seat arrangement and other factors that may contradict
the purpose of a classroom which is to focus and learn stated
by Lewinski (2015). It corresponds with one of the theory
that Apter (1984) developed, the telic mode which is applied
in the environment of the learning facilities. Telic mode
make people look for low arousal environment and may only
focus on the activities and less from distractions. It is
also applicable for learning where it also needs low arousal
environment to focus on what their purpose.
There are a lot of institutions whose goal is to give a
student a proper learning environment such as the NEUST or
Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology. It is an
institution wherein, there are a lot of students that are
willing to invest their time for the purpose of learning and
developing their physical, social, psychological and cultural
factors.
NEUST is composed of different courses to master. One of
them is the College of Architecture. It is composed of
individuals whose specialty are creating and designing
buildings and anything related to it, and those individuals
are the Architecture students. They are commonly known as
creative and innovative students. Their learning depends on
the ambiance of the environment that they are in to. It
affects their thoughts, behavior and mood that is why a
facility for learning should be molded and designed in a way
that it can uplift mood, comfort and satisfaction. It has a
 2

big impact on their cognitive learning process which will

help them develop and improve.
Therefore, the purpose of this research is to know what
are the positive and negative effects of the learning
environment to the architecture students. The aim of this
research is to provide the possible solutions and techniques
on how to improve the facilities and environment to help the
students’ progress or development in studies and
performances. Through a thorough evaluation of the College of
Architecture of its learning environment.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this research is to identify what are the
possible factors that might affect the learning capabilities
of the architecture students. This research aims to answer
the following factors that are related to it:
1. How can the respondents be described in terms of year
level, sex, and academic standing?
2. What are the existing facilities in College of
Architecture of NEUST?
3. What are the factors that may affect the studies of
the Architecture students? Such as the following:
a. Acoustics
b. Lighting
c. Temperature
d. Color
e. Classroom Arrangement
f. Equipment and tools
g. Cleaning Services
4. What are the recommended possible solutions on how
to improve the facilities and environment of College of
Architecture?
 3

Theoretical Framework
Due to the demand of a proper and well-organized learning
environment, the factors that may affect the studies and
activities of the students may require a lot of attention
from the administration to be develop its current state.
Through the evaluation of learning environment of the College
of Architecture, the results of the gathered data from the
questionnaire will be examined and analyzed.
Many countries analyzes the influence of learning
facilities on the academic performances of the students
according to Lewinski, P. (2015). There are specific
characteristics that a learning facility must comply such as
acoustics, lightings, temperature, color, seat arrangement
and other factors. The facility should be prone to
distractions that may contradict to the purpose of the
facility.
As stated on “Towards a Theory of Things: Reversal Theory
and Design” of M. J. Apter, that the formal aspects of the
objects such as colors and shapes, culture and others has a
psychological impact on a person, especially their emotions
and motivation. Telic Motivation, a type of reversal mode-
based theory of motivation that is indicated in his study
which is applicable in the psychological thinking of a
student. Thereafter, a learning facility should arouse the
motivations and emotions of the students. In conformity with
Cheng (1994), a good learning environment affects the
performance of a student.
In accordance to the complex review of Temple (2017),
the learning environment should have a design that will be
able to encourage and support the students’ diversity. It
should neglect all the anomalies that may affect the function
of the learning environment stated by Dudek (2000). Based on
the Philippine Basic Education: Adequacy of School Facilities
in the Philippine Public Schools, an effective school
facility should at least provide a comfortable, safe,
secured, accessible, well-illuminated, well-ventilated, and
aesthetically pleasing.
 4

Research Paradigm

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

•Profile of the •Data Gathering •Lack of Facilities

Respondents: through related within College of
Sex, Year Level, studies, Architecture.
and Academic references and •Evaluation of
Standing. websites. the existing
•Factors that may •Data Collection facilities.
affect the by conducting a •Academic
studies: survey through performance of
Acoustics, questionnaires. the students
Lighting, •Data Analysis
Temperature, •Statistical
Color, Classroom Analysis of Data
Arrangement,
Equipment and
Tools, and
Cleaning
Services.

Figure no. 1. Research Paradigm

The Architecture Students of Mid-Year Class 2019

conducted an evaluation and assessment based on the learning
environment and facilities of College of Architecture in
Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology through the
questionnaire that the researchers gave to them.
After examining and analyzing the gathered data, the
researchers conduct a solution on how College of Architecture
will improved their equipment and facilities affecting the
learning of the students. In figure no. 1 shows the
diagrammatic representation of the research study.
 5

Significance of the Study

This research will be serve as a basis for the
improvement of the facilities of College of Architecture’s
that will benefits to the following:
University. This research is significant to the
university in terms of increasing the number of students
who enrolled in College of Architecture.
College of Architecture. This study will help the
Department to increase the enrollee due to a positive
impact of the present students and their parents and also
the alumni of university.
Students. This study will help the students to boost
their energy, performance, comprehension and cognitive
skills an involving their learning strategies, motivation,
and achievement.
Future Researchers. This research will be useful for
the future researchers who seeks references and data
related to this research and serves as a background about
improving the learning environment depending on their
specific topic.
Future Students. This study will encourage the future
students of NEUST’s College of Architecture to apply and
choose the university for a comfortable environment for
their learning.

Scope and Delimitation

The scope of this research is for the evaluation of the
learning environment (e.g. classrooms, student centers,
library, CADD room, design rooms, etc.) of College of
Architecture in Nueva Ecija University of Science and
Technology that will help the students of the academic year
2018-2019 to focus on a particular attention involving
learning strategies, motivation, and achievement in their
studies.
Furthermore, this research study attempted to identify
the perception and concerned of Architecture students in Mid-
Year class 2019 only. This research should be discussed in
general form, since not all of the respondents are not using
 6

or experiencing some of the facilities of the College of

Architecture. This was conducted with limited time framework.

Definition of Terms
Acoustics - the properties or qualities of a room or
building that determine how sound is transmitted in it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acoustics
Aesthetics -the formal study of art, especially in relation
to the idea of beauty.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/aesthet
ics
Ambiance - the character and atmosphere of a place.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambience
Amenity - something that is intended to make life more
pleasant or comfortable for the people.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/amenity
Architecture - the art and science of designing and making
buildings, or the style of a building.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/archite
cture
Air quality - refers to the condition of the air within our
surrounding.
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/what-is-air-
quality.php
Cognitive skills - are the core skills your brain uses to
think, read, learn, remember, reason, and pay attention.
https://www.learningrx.com/what-is-brain-training-/what-
are-cognitive-skills-/
Evaluation - the process of judging something's quality,
importance, or value, or a report.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/eval
uation
Imperative - something that is extremely important or urgent.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/imperat
ive?q=imperatives
Innovative - being or producing something like nothing done
or experienced or created before.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/innovative
 7

Learning environment - refers to the diverse physical

locations, contexts, and cultures in which students learn.
https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/5-2-
what-is-a-learning-environment/
Learning facilities - learning spaces that are open to all
of the students.
https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/facilitie
s/learning-facilities
Meta-motivation - to describe the motivation of people who
are self-actualized and striving beyond the scope of their
basic needs to reach their full potential.
https://findwords.info/term/metamotivation
Para-telic - is described as the motivation derived from the
activity or behavior itself also known as intrinsic
motivation.
http://www.psitek.net/pages/PsiTek-set-your-motivation-on-
fire-8.html#gsc.tab=0
Pedagogy - the study of the methods and activities of
teaching.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/peda
gogy
Psychological impact - is defined as the effect caused by
environmental and/or biological factors on individual's
social and/or psychological aspects.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-definition-of-
psychological-effects
Rationality - the existence of reasons or intentions for a
particular set of thoughts or actions.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rati
onality
Self-concept - an idea of the self-constructed from the
beliefs one holds about oneself and the responses of others.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/self-concept
Self-efficacy - the belief in one’s capabilities to organize
information and execute a course of action to navigate a
prospective situation.
https://gostrengths.com/what-is-self-efficacy/
Telic - tending toward an end or outcome.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/telic
 8

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

In this chapter, the information about the related

literature and studies are compiled and it indicates the
relevance to this research. It is based on books, magazines,
newspapers, journals, almanacs, encyclopedias and other
related references.

Related Foreign Literature and Studies

Based on the “Effects of Classrooms’ Architecture on
Academic Performance in View of Telic Versus Paratelic
Motivation: A Review.”, by Peter Lewinski (2015), it analyzes
research papers from many countries that directly or
indirectly test how classrooms’ architecture influences
academic performance. These papers evaluate and explain
specific characteristics of classrooms, with an emphasis on
how they affect learning processes and learning outcomes.
Factors such as acoustics, light, color, temperature, and
seat arrangement are scrutinized to determine whether and by
how much they improve or hinder students’ academic
performance in classrooms.
As stated in “Evaluation of the Physical Classroom by
Students and Professors: A Lens Model Approach.”, by Darren
Douglas and Robert Gifford (2001), a method for linking
classroom evaluations to specific physical properties and for
comparing the evaluations of different groups is described
and illustrated. Thirty-five college classrooms were
photographed and shown to 20 professors and 51 undergraduate
students, each of whom evaluated the friendliness of and their
overall preference for all the classrooms. Seven physical
properties of the classrooms were reliably assessed by
independent observers. Using a modified Brunswik lens model,
the relations between the physical properties and the
evaluations by the two groups were established and compared.
Between 40 and 57 per cent of the variance in the evaluations
could be explained from only three classroom properties: view
to outdoors, seating comfort and seating arrangement.
 9

Evaluations by the students and professors were surprisingly

similar, an encouraging sign for classroom designers.
In proportion with, “Research into Identifying Effective
Learning Environments.”, by Kenn Fisher (2005), the
evaluation of school learning environments has for decades
traditionally focused on the technical performance of the
facilities with little attention being paid to their
pedagogical performance or effectiveness. There are a range
of ‘top down’ imperatives which have driven such an approach,
including the need to sustainably finance educational
infrastructure and show evidence as to how this money is being
spent successfully. This need is emerging following the
funding approaches now being taken by such bodies as the
European Investment Bank and in Public Private Partnerships.
On the other hand, ‘bottom up’ imperatives have considered
the pedagogical performance of learning environments as a
means of providing feedback to authorities especially in the
process of procurement. This in turn has influenced the
development of planning and design guidelines.
As specified to “Designing Effective Study
Environments.”, by Nancy J. Stone (2001), The study setting
(private or open-plan), environmental color (blue, red, or
white), and study material (reading or math comprehension)
were manipulated in a simulated study environment to
determine their effects on adult students' mood,
satisfaction, motivation, and performance. Students rated the
reading task as more demanding and less enjoyable than the
math task. Negative mood was slightly greater for students
given the reading task. Positive mood was slightly higher
when students studied in a blue carrel compared to a red
carrel in the open-plan setting. Satisfaction with
performance and motivation were not affected. Performance was
significantly lower on the reading task in the red
environment. Implications of these findings and suggestions
for research are discussed.
As mentioned to “Classroom Environment and Student
Affective Performance: An Effective Profile.”, by Yin Cheong
Cheng (1994), the relationship between student affective
performance and classroom physical environment, social
climate, and management style were investigated in a sample
 10

of classes in Hong Kong primary schools. The results of

Pearson and canonical correlation analyses indicated that
among the measures of classroom environment, perceived
quality of physical environment and class master's expert
power, personal power, and coercive power were the strongest
predictors of affective performance. This finding supports
the importance of class master's management style in the
classroom environment. Students' attitudes toward school and
teachers appeared to be most sensitive to variation in the
classroom environment, and self-concept was the least
sensitive among the seven student affective measures.
Students' self-efficacy of learning and intention to drop out
were moderately sensitive to classroom environment.
Based on “How Classroom Design Affects Learning?”, by
the Connecting Elements (2016), the student outcomes are the
most important indicator of success. Practically everything
revolves around boosting student learning achievements,
including funding, professional development for teachers, the
implementation of standardized tests and enrichment or
remediation opportunities for students.
As alleged by “Students in Space: Student Practices in
Non-Traditional Classrooms.”, by Amy Chapman, Holly Randell-
Moon, Matthew Campbell, and Christopher Drew (2014), The
discourse of the non-traditional classroom has found itself
fundamentally intertwined with the rationalities of creating
learning relevant for the future-orientated twenty-first
century. In such an imaginary the idea of the conventional
classroom – with its four walls, blackboard, ‘closed’ door,
teacher-centered pedagogy and student learning conceptualized
through the logics of the industrial era – is being
renegotiated. This article focuses on an empirical
examination of some of the changes to student classroom
practice enabled by the material conditions of non-
traditional learning spaces.
According to “From Learning Cultures to Educational
Cultures: Values and Judgements in Educational Research and
Educational Improvement.”, by Gert Biesta (2011), this
article outlines a new approach to the study learning and the
improvement of education. The approach consists of two
elements: a theory of learning cultures and a cultural theory
 11

of learning. Learning cultures are different from learning

contexts or learning environments in that they are to be
understood as the social practices through which people
learn. Learning cultures therefore do not exist objectively,
but only in function of concrete practices of learning. This
requires that the study of learning needs to, ‘follow the
learning’. In the cultural theory of learning, learning
itself is seen as practical, embodied and social. While
learning is often seen as a descriptive term, it is argued
that the use of the word learning always implies a value
judgement about change (for example change in cognition,
behavior or disposition). Unlike the study of physical
objects such as trees or planets, the study of learning
therefore needs to start from a conception of good or
desirable learning. This becomes even more important when the
cultural approach is utilized for the improvement of
educational processes and practices. It is argued that in
such cases we need to move from the notion of learning
cultures to the notion of educational cultures.
On the basis of “Architecture of Schools: The New
Learning Environments.”, by Mark Dudek (2000), the role of
education within society has always been important. Today,
the function of school architecture in that process is less
obvious. Successive governments have failed in this area.
Now, at the beginning of the new millennium, the evidence of
this neglect can be seen in numerous badly maintained
buildings, so-called 'reception classes' for the rising fours
accommodated in lofty Victorian classrooms, inner city
secondary schools with little or no external recreation
space, and generally overcrowded, noisy classrooms. These and
other anomalies are the result of a sustained period of
neglect of the state education system.
As believed by the “Creativity in Product Design
Education: Understanding The Learning Environment.”, by Danah
Alhussain, Gareth Loudon and Paul Wilgeroth (2016), this
paper examines current research into the relationship between
creativity and the immediate physical environment, and how it
has been found to influence the creativity of undergraduate
product design students. This includes conducting an
experiment testing the familiar physical environment of the
 12

students, and exploring studies about how taking students

into a different, more immersive environment affects learning
and stimulates creativity. By comparing the result of that
experiment to theories about how environments can affect
creativity, the score difference is not statistically
significant overall even though one of the test groups scores
marginally higher than the others. This outcome maybe occurs
due to the type of experiment chosen, the scoring method or
the test environments. The paper concludes by outlining plans
for further investigation as part of a recently commenced PhD
research project.
Based on “Learning Spaces for the 21st Century.”, by
Paul Temple (2007), the aim of this review is to inform the
future design of learning spaces, in order to facilitate the
changing pedagogical practices needed to support a mass
higher education system with its greater student diversity.
In determined by “Human-Centered Design Guidelines.”, by
Lori Gee (2006), College and university space is for people?
For learning, meeting, exploring, thinking, or relaxing.
Campus spaces, particularly classrooms, influence our
attitudes about education. We all have memories? good and
bad? About such campus places. Although too little thought
has typically gone into the significance of space in the
learning process, we have an opportunity to change that by
adopting human-centered design. Human-centered guidelines
begin by considering the needs of students and educators,
making it possible for space to support the transformation of
learning.
As stated in “Classroom Design and Learning Environment
as Predictors of Pre-Service Teachers’ Performance in Fine
and Applied Arts in Colleges of Education in Southwestern
Nigeria.”, by Olaleye, E. O. (2013), fine and applied arts
provide the aesthetic and non-aesthetic necessities that
enrich individuals’ quality of life. In recent times, the
persistent students’ poor performance in the subject has been
attributed to inadequate facilities, use of traditional
classrooms and inappropriately designed learning environment
in schools and institutions where teachers are being
prepared. Researchers have focused on improved methodology
and classroom practices but not on classroom and learning
 13

environment for teaching the subject. There is also a dearth

of studies on influence of classroom design and learning
environment on students’ performance in fine and applied
arts.
As stated on the dissertation entitled “Developing a
Method of Teaching Architectural Project Design: A Case Study
of Third Year Studio Project, Faculty of Architecture,
Sriburapha University, Thailand”, by Ajaphol Dusitnanond
(2007), this research was concerned with an Interactive
Evaluation, using an Action Research approach, of the
effectiveness of using a Student-Centred Cooperative Approach
– as opposed to the more traditional teacher-centred method
– in the teaching of a Third Year Architecture subject,
‘Studio Project Design’. The four steps of Action Research –
plan, act, observe and reflect – were used to make judgements
and recommendations about this new approach. The respondents
of this study were forty-six students – of whom twelve were
also volunteer participant-interviewees – enrolled in Studio
Design, together with three teachers, at the Faculty of
Architecture, Sriburapha1 University, Bangkok, Thailand. A
qualitative approach was used to collect and analyses student
and staff opinion.
In agreement with “School Facility Conditions and
Student Academic Achievement”, by Glenn I. Earthman (2002),
the paper shows that the condition of school facilities has
an important impact on student performance and teacher
effectiveness. In particular, research demonstrates that
comfortable classroom temperature and noise level are very
important to efficient student performance. The age of school
buildings is a useful proxy in this regard, since older
facilities often have problems with thermal environment and
noise level. A number of studies have measured overall
building condition and its connection to student performance;
these have consistently shown that students attending schools
in better condition outperform students in substandard
buildings by several percentage points. School building
conditions also influence teacher effectiveness. Teachers
report that physical improvements greatly enhance the
teaching environment. Finally, school overcrowding also makes
it harder for students to learn; this effect is greater for
 14

students from families of low socioeconomic status. Analyses

show that class size reduction leads to higher student
achievement.
As determined by “The Impact of Classroom Evaluation
Practices on Students”, by Terence J. Crooks (1998), in most
educational programs, a substantial proportion of teacher and
student time is devoted to activities which involve (or lead
directly to) evaluation by the teacher of student products or
behavior. This review summarizes results from 14 specific
fields of research that cast light on the relationships
between classroom evaluation practices and student outcomes.
Particular attention is given to outcomes involving learning
strategies, motivation, and achievement. Where possible,
mechanisms are suggested that could account for the reported
effects. The conclusions derived from the individual fields
are then merged to produce an integrated summary with clear
implications for effective educational practice. The primary
conclusion is that classroom evaluation has powerful direct
and indirect impacts, which may be positive or negative, and
thus deserves very thoughtful planning and implementation.
In accordance with “Broadening the Roles of School
Psychologists through an Evaluation of Learning Environments:
A Pilot Study”, by Jessica Kell Faulkner, Kelly D. Bradley
and Janet K. Lumpp, it is well documented that although school
psychologists are trained to be well rounded with many skills,
they are generally confined to assessment in their daily
practices in a school setting. Research has found that school
psychologists are ready and willing to broaden their roles
and would like to become more versatile in their work and
more engaged with the everyday functions of the school. One
role outlined by the National Association of School
Psychologists is the evaluation of classroom environments.
The learning environment has been found to directly impact
student outcomes. Due to minimal research in evaluation of
learning environments by school psychologists, this pilot
study has identified the teacher and student perceptions of
the learning environment and has determined what factors are
important for school psychologists to consider during this
process.
 15

According to “School Facilities: Overview, Maintenance

and Modernization of”, by Jeffery A. Lackney and Lawrence O.
Picus (2005), an effective school facility is responsive to
the changing programs of educational delivery, and at a
minimum should provide a physical environment that is
comfortable, safe, secure, accessible, well illuminated, well
ventilated, and aesthetically pleasing. The school facilities
consist of not only the physical structure and the variety of
building systems, such as mechanical, plumbing, electrical
and power, telecommunications, security, and fire suppression
systems. The facilities also include furnishings, materials,
text books and supplies, equipment and information
technology, as well as various aspects of the building
grounds, namely, athletic fields, playgrounds, areas for
outdoor learning, and vehicular access and parking.
In the journal, entitled “Classroom Effects on Student
Motivation: Goal Structures, Social Relationships, and
Competence Beliefs”, by Tim Urdan & Erin Schoenfelder (2006),
Psychologists and educators have often conceptualized
motivation as an individual difference variable, something
that some students simply have more of than other students.
This view of motivation can underestimate contextual
influences. In this article we consider how characteristics
of the school and classroom may influence student motivation,
as well as the role of educators in shaping school and
classroom climate. We describe three motivational
perspectives: achievement goal theory, self-determination
theory, and social-cognitive theory. The effects on
motivation of social relationships with teachers and peers
are also considered.
As stated on the journal, “Impact of Facilities on
Academic Performance of Students with Special Needs in
Mainstreamed Public Schools in Southwestern Nigeria”, by
Dorcas O. Fareo and Olakunbi O. Ojo (2012), the Facilities
have a great impact on academic performances of students, and
inadequate facilities translate to poor performance. The
study examined the availability and convenience of the
facilities that were provided to students with special
educational needs in mainstreamed schools. It ascertained the
qualifications of teachers teaching in mainstreamed public
 16

secondary schools. It determined the relationship between

availability of facilities and academic performance of
students with special educational needs; and also compared
the academic performance of male and female students with
special educational needs. The results showed that essential
facilities and materials like hand railings, hearing aids,
Braille, instructional materials, and lower toilets were not
available, although the few that were available (typewriters,
resource rooms, wheel chairs) were in poor condition.
As cited on the “Space Matters: The Impact of Formal
Learning Environments on Student Learning”, by the Center for
Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEPA), (2015), a growing
body of research has found that school facilities can have a
profound impact on both teacher and student outcomes. With
respect to teachers, school facilities affect teacher
recruitment, retention, commitment, and effort. With respect
to students, school facilities affect health, behavior,
engagement, learning, and growth in achievement. Thus,
researchers generally conclude that without adequate
facilities and resources, it is extremely difficult to serve
large numbers of children with complex needs.
In “The Importance of School Facilities in Improving
Student Outcomes”, by Christopher Brooks, PhD (2011), The
objective of this research is to identify the relationship
between formal learning spaces and student learning outcomes.
Using a quasi-experimental design, researchers partnered with
an instructor who taught identical sections of the same course
in two radically different formal learning environments to
isolate the impact of the physical environment on student
learning. The results of the study reveal that, holding all
factors except the learning spaces constant, students taking
the course in a technologically enhanced environment
conducive to active learning techniques outperformed their
peers who were taking the same course in a more traditional
classroom setting. The evidence suggests strongly that
technologically enhanced learning environments, independent
of all other factors, have a significant and positive impact
on student learning.
In corresponding to “The Impact of Classroom Design on
Pupils' Learning: Final Results of a Holistic, Multi-Level
 17

Analysis”, by Peter Barrett, Fay Davies, et al. (2015),

Assessments have been made of 153 classrooms in 27 schools in
order to identify the impact of the physical classroom
features on the academic progress of the 3766 pupils who
occupied each of those specific spaces. This study confirms
the utility of the naturalness, individuality and stimulation
(or more memorably, SIN) conceptual model as a vehicle to
organize and study the full range of sensory impacts
experienced by an individual occupying a given space. In this
particular case the naturalness design principle accounts for
around 50% of the impact on learning, with the other two
accounting for roughly a quarter each. Within this structure,
seven key design parameters have been identified that
together explain 16% of the variation in pupils' academic
progress achieved. These are Light, Temperature, Air Quality,
Ownership, Flexibility, Complexity and Color.
In the study “The Impact of School Facilities On Student
Achievement, Behavior, Attendance, and Teacher Turnover Rate
in Central Texas Middle Schools”, by O'Neill, D. J., & Oates,
A. D. (2001), it discusses a study that explores whether
improving school buildings has a direct and positive affect
on student learning, attendance, and teacher turnover rates.
Identifies the environmental aspects of the school facility
that have the potential to enhance learning. The study shows
a direct relationship between building quality and student
achievement.
As reviewed in “A Sound Foundation? What We Know About
the Impact of Environments on Learning and the Implications
for Building Schools for The Future”, by the authors Woolner,
P., Hall, E., Higgins, S., McCaughey, C., & Wall, K. (2007),
a literature review conducted in the UK for the Design Council
and CfBT (Higgins et al., 2005) which looked at the evidence
of the impact of environments on learning in schools. We have
reviewed the available evidence regarding different facets of
the physical environment and provided an analysis based on
different areas of effect, including the extent to which
different facets interact (positively and negatively) with
one another. Our conclusions suggest that, although the
research often indicates the parameters of an effective
environment, there is an overall lack of empirical evidence
 18

about the impact of individual elements of the physical

environment which might inform school design at a practical
level to support student achievement. However, at a secondary
level of analysis, there are indications that environmental
change can be part of a catalytic process of school
development and improvement.
In an explanatory, mixed method study entitled “Making
The Case for Space: The Effect of Learning Spaces on Teaching
and Learning.”, by Terry Byers, Wesly Imms, and Elizabeth
Hartnell-Young (2014), they examined the impact of learning
spaces on teachers’ pedagogy, student engagement and student
learning outcomes in a technology-rich school setting. Its
quasi-experimental design allowed examination of differences
in these variables between two settings - ‘traditional’
classrooms, and ‘new generation learning spaces’ (NGLS).
Results from quantitative analyses over a one-year period
indicated that particular configurations of learning spaces
did have a measurable effect on how students’ perceived their
learning experiences and their engagement levels, with
improvements often linked to NGLS. In addition, comparative
analyses of experimental and control group standardized
assessment data in subjects English and mathematics indicated
a similar effect for the same participants. The study suggests
that a single-subject, repeated measures design (SSRD) can be
used to measure the outcomes effect of space on student
learning outcomes. In this regard, this approach addresses a
perceived lack of empirical data highlighted by recent
reviews of research on this topic.
The study entitled “Designing Classrooms to Maximize
Student Achievement.”, by Cheryan, Sapna, et al. (2014)
Improving student achievement is vital for our nation’s
competitiveness. Scientific research shows how the physical
classroom environment influences student achievement. Two
findings are key: First, the building’s structural facilities
profoundly influence learning. Inadequate lighting, noise,
low air quality, and deficient heating in the classroom are
significantly related to worse student achievement. Over half
of U.S. schools have inadequate structural facilities, and
students of color and lower income students are more likely
to attend schools with inadequate structural facilities.
 19

Second, scientific studies reveal the unexpected importance

of a classroom’s symbolic features, such as objects and wall
décor, in influencing student learning and achievement in
that environment. Symbols inform students whether they are
valued learners and belong within the classroom, with far-
reaching consequences for students’ educational choices and
achievement.
LOCAL LITERATURE AND STUDIES
According to “Investigating the Relationship Between
School Facilities and Academic Achievements Through
Geographically Weighted Regression.”, by Ligaya Leah
Figueroa, Samsung Lim & Jihyun Lee (2016), the authors
investigated spatial variations in the effects of school
amenities on academic achievements of a cluster of provinces
in the Philippines. Semiparametric geographically weighted
regression (SGWR) techniques were applied to public school
facility data to determine whether the effects of school
facilities varied depending on school locations. The analysis
results presented significant spatial variations and
differing effects of school sizes and utilities on the
academic achievements of top performing schools across the
study area. SGWR modelling revealed that schools in sparsely
populated rural areas with basic facilities have performed
better than schools in urban areas with poor facilities,
indicating that basic facilities are important in far-flung
schools. Since the effect on academic achievement varies
depending on the social and economic infrastructure, the
provision of school facilities should be based on the unique
needs of each community. A decentralized approach is
beneficial for the management of school facilities in the
Philippines where education resources are limited.
In relation with “The Effect of the Adequacy of School
Facilities on Students’ Performance and Achievement in
Technology and Livelihood Education.”, by Mark Raguindin
Limon (2016), a considerable number of variables that operate
in the teaching-learning process invariably affect the
educational performance and achievement of students. One
crucial variable that directly impacts the quality of
learning acquisition among learners is the adequacy or lack
of school facilities that aid in the reinforcement of
 20

knowledge and skills. The purpose of this study was to

establish a relationship between the quality of school
facilities and student performance and achievement, in
relation to the field of Technology and Livelihood Education
(TLE). Mixed methods design was used in this study where
questionnaires were administered to and interviews were
carried out with the respondents who were department heads
and selected instructors in the field. In addition, data was
also collected from the school anecdotal records.
As specified by “The Impact of School Facilities On
Student Achievement, Attendance, Behavior, Completion Rate
and Teacher Turnover Rate in Selected Texas High Schools.”,
by Robert Scott Mcgowen (2007), the purpose of this study was
to explore the possible relationship between school facility
conditions and school outcomes such as student academic
achievement, attendance, discipline, completion rate and
teacher turnover rate. The researchers’ recommendations based
upon this study include the following: administrators and
designers should take into account factors such as interior
environment and academic learning space when planning schools
to positively impact student discipline; school design and
construction should focus on specialized learning spaces and
other academic areas more than administrative support spaces
when striving to increase teacher satisfaction with physical
working conditions.
In conformity to “Building Better Learning Environments
in the Philippines.”, by the World Bank Group (2016), the
Evidence from around the world has shown that improving school
infrastructure leads to better learning outcomes. For
example, a 2011 review of the economics literature over the
last 20 years showed that the availability of basic school
infrastructure (such as classrooms, desks, and chairs) and
facilities (such as electricity, libraries, and blackboards)
is frequently associated with better student learning
achievement. These findings have been backed up by a
systematic review of recent impact evaluations, which showed
that infrastructure investments have a positive impact on
school enrollment rates, attendance rates, and learning
achievement. Also, research in the Philippines has shown that
reducing the number of students per classroom is associated
 21

with better student learning outcomes, particularly in rural

schools.
Based on “Philippine Basic Education: Adequacy of School
Facilities in Philippine Public Schools” (2016), facilities
in the Philippine Public School is a problem. I experience
when I was in elementary and secondary the school facilities
are not sufficient: classrooms, chairs, books, and even
teachers isn’t enough. I remember when I was in 1st year high
school, the schedule of my class was on Monday, Wednesday and
Friday (MWF) and we go to school early (6:00 AM) and ended at
5:30PM it’s because we lack classrooms. This issue has never
been solved since then. Instead it’s getting worst,
especially for the new curriculum K to 12 Program.

RELEVANCE OF THE CITED LITERATURE AND STUDIES TO THE PRESENT

STUDY

In conformity with Lewinski (2015), the academic

performance of the students is influenced by the
characteristics of their learning environment. It affects
their learning process and outcomes. Wherein, according to
Apter (1984, 1989, 2014) there must be an effect on the
inconsistency of the behavior of the students which have an
impact for their motivation to learn. It may serve as a
relevance of the designers to design more effectively to
motivate the students to learn more. There are personality
features derived from the psychological reversals that are
seen to constitute a personality traits of the students
assessed by Morgatroyd, et.al (1978).
Studying requires a lot of determination where they may
be simulated by their environment where it affects their mood,
satisfaction, motivation and performance as specified by
Stone (2001). The analysis of Cheng (1994) on the sample
classes of Hong Kong primary schools, that the quality of
physical environment has a strong effect on the attitude of
a student. The physical properties of a school learning
environment involve a student’s performance such as seating
arrangement and comfort as a result of the evaluation of the
physical classroom as determined by Fisher (2005).
 22

According on a site, that the most important indicator

of success revolves in the achievements of the students. By
creating a relevant environment, the students may be also
inspired through a complex setting of their environment as
alleged by Chapman, Moon, Campbell, and Drew (2014).
An article made by Biesta (2011), the environment should
value the learning and design culture that has an impression
in the studies of the students. The environment should also
apply the designs that are in demand and be able to support
a students’ diversity as said in the complex review of Temple
(2007). The environment should neglect any anomalies that
will affect the function of the school stated by Dudek (2000).
The significance of the spaces for students will have an
opportunity to adopt the designs that need to consider the
users to make transformation of the learning possible
determined by Olaleye (2013). It is also cited by the CEEPA
& Barrett et al. (2015), that the facilities also have a major
impact on the outcomes of the study. It also affects not only
the students but also the teachers.
Figueroa, Lim and Lee (2016) investigated that there
are also factors like spatial variations of the school
amenities that might affect the academic achievements of the
students that a certain technique was applied if the effects
of the school facilities depends on the school geography. The
quality of the facilities may have a crucial effect in the
teaching-learning process of the teachers according to Limon
(2016).
As stated by the World Bank Group (2016), through the
improvements of the school infrastructures will help to
create a better learning outcomes. An effective school
facility should at least provide a comfortable, safe,
secured, accessible, well-illuminated, well-ventilated, and
aesthetically pleasing based on the Philippine Basic
Education: Adequacy of School Facilities in the Philippine
Public Schools.
 23

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researchers discuss the research

design, area of study, population, sample of the population,
sampling technique, instrument for data collection,
validation of the questionnaire, and administration of the
instrument and method of data analysis.

Method of Research
This research study needs a quantitative method of
research. Thus, the researchers used descriptive method to
analyze and interpret the collected data. This method suits
in this research topic that tends to describe the
relationships between the students of College of Architecture
and the department itself. Descriptive research is designed
to do some inaccurate predictions, and do not determine cause
and effect relationship. There are three (3) main types of
descriptive method: 1) observational method, 2) case study
method, and 3) survey method. The researchers used the survey
method because it served to answer the questions and purposes
of the study.
The survey research method used to study the collecting
and analyzing data from a few sample or respondents that is
considered to be the representative of the whole group.
Similarly, McBurney (1994:170) defines the survey assessing
public opinion or individual characteristics by the use of
questionnaire and sampling methods.

The Research Locale

This study will be conducted at the College of
Architecture school of Nueva Ecija University of Science and
Technology (NEUST) located at Barangay Sumacab Este, city of
Cabanatuan, province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines. The NEUST
is one of the state university in Central Luzon and in Nueva
Ecija and in present time this is the only university in the
province of Nueva Ecija that is offering the program of
Bachelor of Science in Architecture.
 24

Figure no. 2. Nueva Ecija University of Science and

Technology, Main Campus, Sumacab Este, Cabanatuan City,
College of Architecture

Respondents of the Study

The target respondents for this study defined to include
the 1st year to 5th year students of College of Architecture
in Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology of Mid-
Year Class 2019 with total population of 74.
In this study, the accessible population comprised all
the students in five (5) year levels of College of
Architecture. The table no. 1 below presents a total number
of record of the Architecture students of NEUST during the
Mid-Year Class 2019.
 25

Table no. 1: The population of the Architecture Students

in Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology (Mid-
Year Class 2019)
Total Number
Number of Percentage
Year Level Per Year
Respondents (%)
Level
First Year - - 0
Second Year - - 0
Third Year 6 5 7.93%
Fourth Year 42 38 60.32%
Fifth Year 10 10 15.87%
Others 16 10 15.87%
Total N = 74 Ʃn = 63 Ʃ % = 100%

Research Instruments
1. Questionnaire.
The researchers designed a questionnaire (see Appendix
A) for the students as one of the sources of collecting data
or information for this study. The evaluation questions were
aimed to answer at elicit relevant information concerning the
evaluation and/or assessment of the facilities of College of
Architecture in NEUST and how does it affects the academic
performance of the Architecture students within the vicinity
of the department.

The questionnaire has three (3) parts:

Part I. Profile of the Respondents.
Considering the basic profile of the respondents
which is the Architecture students, like for example:
their name (optional), year level, sex, and academic
standing, the researcher used this as a basis on
analyzing the result in relation to the respondents and
the facilities and learning environment of College of
Architecture.
 26

Part II. List of existing facilities.

This part is the enumerating of existing facilities
in College of Architecture. The following facilities
should be present in the said department:
1. Library/Learning Resource Center (LRC);
2. Studio/Laboratory rooms (e.g. design room);
3. Lecture rooms;
4. Consultation rooms;
5. Students’ Center;
6. Multi-purpose Laboratory (e.g. scale modeling,
utilities and building technology)
7. Computer Laboratory/CADD room;
8. Gallery;
9. Student’s Organization Office (ASC, UAPSA, PEER);
10. Student’s Publication Office (Papyrus);
11. Audio-Visual Room;
12. Guidance Office;
13. Dean’s Office;
14. Faculty Office;
15. Conference room’
16. Comfort rooms;
17. Waiting lounge/areas.
Part III. Evaluation of Architecture Students to the
Facilities and Environment of College of Architecture.
This part has eight sections from determined from
A to H. It was designed in “Closed Form” or “Restricted
Type” of questionnaire, on a 5-point scale, ranging
from “excellent”, through “very good”, “fair” to “poor”
and “no experience”.
a. Section “A” - is about the Acoustics of the
facilities of the College of Architecture;
b. Section “B” - is about the Lighting of the
facilities of the College of Architecture;
c. Section “C” - is about the Temperature of the
facilities of the College of Architecture;
d. Section “D” - is about the Color of the facilities
of the College of Architecture;
e. Section “E” - is about the Classroom Arrangement of
the College of Architecture;
 27

f. Section “F” - is about the Equipment and Tools of

the College of Architecture;
g. Section “G” - is about the Cleaning Services of the
College of Architecture;
PART IV. Suggestion and Recommendation of Architecture
Students.
This part identifies the suggestion and
recommendation of Architecture students for the
improvement of College of Architecture in NEUST.
1. Library.
The researchers’ primary sources of data are the studies
related to the focus of the topic: “Evaluation of Architecture
Students to the Facilities and Equipment of College of
Architecture”.
2. Website.
A collection of related network web resources that is
used by most of the students, researchers, educators, etc.
Website is a useful source of data or information related to
the topic that the researchers are studying.

Statistical Treatment of Data

In gathering the data, the main source are the students
of College of Architecture from First Year up to Fifth Year
(Mid-Year Class 2019) with total population of 74.
To determine the acceptable minimum number of
respondents on topic: “Evaluation of Architecture Students to
the Facilities and Equipment of College of Architecture”, the
Sloven’s Formula was used:

N where:
n = _________ N = number of population
1 + Ne² n = number of sample
e = error of tolerance (5%)
Purposive Sampling.
The researchers select based on their characteristics
of a population and the objective of the study. Participants
 28

are selected based to the needs of the study and the ones
that do not meet the profile are rejected.

Percentage.
Percentage was used in order to identify the statistical
representation of the results in questionnaires.

f x 100 where:
P = __________ P = the frequency percentage
N F = the frequency
N = the number of respondents

Likert Scale.
Likert scale measures the level of agreement or
disagreement of the respondents through questionnaires.

Table 2. Likert Scale

Verbal
Range Interpretation Meaning
(VB)
Extremely good or
4.2 – 5.0 Excellent(E)
outstanding
Very Good or
3.4 – 4.1 Very Good (VG)
outstanding
2.6 – 3.3 Fair (F) Good
1.8 – 2.5 Poor (P) No good
No Experience No involvement at
1.0 - 1.7
(NE) all
 29

Actual Procedure of Study

After the analyzation of problems related to the College
of Architecture, the researchers’ one of the submitted
research titles was approved. The researchers were collected
the data and information through websites, related studies,
and distributed questionnaires to the respondents.
Primary source of data gathering is the website. The
researchers analyzed the data and information related to this
study.
Based on actual data gathering collection, the research
adviser’s approved questionnaire was distributed to the
related respondents which are the Architecture students in
NEUST.
 30

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

In this chapter, the gathered data conducted at the

department of College of Architecture from the target
respondents including the Architecture students who are
currently taking the Mid-Year Classes 2019. It contains all
the data that answers the problem that are stated in the
statement of the problem in the 1st chapter. It

Part I. Profile of the Respondents.

Table 3. Year Level of the Architecture Students taking

Mid-Year Classes 2019
Relative
Frequency Percentag
Year Level Frequency
(F) e (%)
(RF)
1st Year - - -
2nd Year - - -
3rd Year 5 0.0793 7.93%
4th Year 38 0.6032 60.32%
5th Year 10 0.1587 15.87%
Others 10 0.1587 15.87%
TOTAL 63 1 100%

00

7.93% 1st Year

15.87%
2nd Year
3rd Year
15.87%
4th Year
60.32% 5th Year
Others

Figure 3. Year Level of the Architecture Students taking

Mid-Year Classes 2019
 31

As shown on the Table 3, out of 63 respondents that are

currently taking the Mid-Year Classes 2019, the highest
sample size obtained in terms of year level are the 4th year
level that has a frequency of 38 or 60.32% of the total
percentage of the respondents while the lowest sample size
was the 3rd year level that has a frequency of 5 or 7.93% of
the total percentage of the respondents.

Table 4. Sex of the Architecture Students taking Mid-Year

Classes 2019
Relative
Frequency Percentage
Sex Frequency
(F) (%)
(RF)
Female 37 0.587 59%
Male 26 0.412 41%
TOTAL 63 1.0 100%

41%

Female
59%
Male

Figure 4. Sex of the Architecture Students taking Mid-Year

Classes 2019

As shown on Table 4, out of 63 respondents that are

currently taking the Mid-Year Classes 2019, the highest
sample size obtained in terms of sex are female that has a
frequency of 37 or 59% of the total percentage of the
 32

respondents while male has a frequency of 26 or 41% of the

total percentage of the respondents.

Table 5. Academic Standing of the Architecture Students

taking Mid-Year Classes 2019
Relative
Frequency Percentage
ACADEMIC STANDING Frequency
(F) (%)
(RF)
Regular - - -
Irregular 63 1.0 100%
TOTAL 63 1.0 100%

REGULAR
IRREGULAR

100%

Figure 5. Academic Standing of the Architecture Students

taking Mid-Year Classes 2019

As shown on Table 4, out of 63 respondents that are

currently taking the Mid-Year Classes 2019, the sample size
obtained in terms of academic standing are irregular students
that has a frequency of 63 or 100% of the total percentage of
the respondents while there are no regular students that are
currently taking the Classes.
 33

Part II. List of Facilities Required for College of

Architecture.
Table 6. List of Existing Facilities in College of
Architecture
Legend:
1 Existing
Not Existing
11
11 FACILITIES (F) (F) (RF) (RF) (%) (%)
1 Library/Learning
1 58 5 0.92 0.08 92% 8%
Resource Center (LRC).
Studio/Laboratory rooms.
2 61 2 0.97 0.32 97% 3%
(e.g. design room)
Lecture rooms. 100
3 63 - 1.0 - -
%
4 Consultation rooms. 58 5 0.92 0.08 92% 8%
Students’ Centers. 100
5 63 - 1.0 - -
%
Multi-purpose Laboratory
(e.g. scale modeling,
6 31 32 0.49 0.51 49% 51%
utilities and building
technology).
Computer Laboratory/CADD
7 62 1 0.98 0.02 98% 2%
room.
8 Gallery. 56 7 0.89 0.11 89% 11%
Students’ Organization
9 61 2 0.97 0.32 97% 3%
Office (ASC, UAPSA, PEER)
Students’ Publication
10 61 2 0.97 0.32 97% 3%
Office (Papyrus)
11 Audio-Visual Room. 62 1 0.98 0.02 98% 2%
12 Guidance Office. 53 10 0.84 0.16 84% 16%
Dean’s Office. 100
13 63 - 1.0 - -
%
14 Faculty Office. 62 1 0.98 0.02 98% 2%
15 Conference Room. 36 27 0.57 0.43 57% 43%
Comfort Rooms. 100
16 63 - 1.0 - -
%
17 Waiting Lounges/Areas. 61 2 0.97 0.32 97% 3%
 34

120%
97% 100% 100% 98% 97% 97% 98% 100% 98% 100% 97%
100% 92% 92% 89%
84%

80%
57%
60% 51%
49%
43%
40%
16%
20% 8% 8% 11%
3% 0 0 2% 3% 3% 2% 0 2% 0 3%
0%

EXISTING NOT EXISTING

Figure 6. List of Existing Facilities in College of

Architecture

As shown on Table 6, the highest percentage among the

existing facilities of the College of Architecture are the
Lecture Rooms, Students’ Center, Dean’s Office and Comfort
Rooms that got 100% while the highest percentage that is not
existing with a percentage of 51% is the Multi-Purpose
Laboratory (e.g. scale modeling, utilities and building
technology) and the second is the Conference Room which has
a percentage of 43%.
Based on the observation of the researchers from the
answers of the respondents, that some of them are not aware
of the existing and non-existing facilities of the College of
Architecture.
 35

Part III. Evaluation of Architecture Students to the

Facilities and Environment of College of Architecture

Table 7. Acoustics of the Facilities of the College of

Architecture
A ACOUSTIC 5 4 3 2 1 WM VI
I can peacefully enjoy the
1 LRC because of good sound 8 16 27 6 6 3.22 F
treatment.
I use design room in
2 harmony because of good 6 12 32 13 0 3.17 F
sound treatment.
I clearly hear my professor
3 8 22 27 5 1 3.49 VG
during discussion.
Consultation room has a
4 8 20 23 10 2 3.35 F
good sound treatment.
The noise came from the
5 corridor distracts me from 11 19 27 6 0 3.56 VG
doing my plates.
The noise of other Classes
6 from the next room 4 13 29 13 4 3.00 F
distracts me from studying.
CADD room has a good sound
7 9 19 28 6 1 3.46 VG
treatment.
The sounds in gallery area
8 5 13 24 11 10 2.87 F
has a good sound treatment.
We clearly hear each other
9 in Students’ Organization 11 15 28 8 1 3.43 VG
Office.
The sounds from Audio
Visual Room (AVR) are
10 11 23 23 6 0 3.62 VG
understandably in any
corner of the room.
The noise coming from
11 vehicles outside loses my 6 9 24 14 10 2.79 F
focus on studying.
There’s no other noise
12 coming from outside of the 7 17 29 7 3 3.29 F
Dean’s Office.
 36

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD FAIR POOR NO EXPERINCE

Figure 7. Acoustics of the Facilities of the College of

Architecture

As shown on Table 7, the Statement No. 10 “The sounds

from Audio Visual Room (AVR) are understandably in any corner
of the room.”, has the highest weighted mean (3.62) with a
verbal interpretation “Very Good”, while the Statement No. 11
“The noise coming from vehicles outside loses my focus on
studying.”, has the lowest weighted mean (2.79) with a verbal
interpretation “Fair”.

Table 8. Lighting of the Facilities of the College of

Architecture
B LIGHTING 5 4 3 2 1 WM VI
The lecture rooms have
1 enough lighting when doing 8 24 23 8 0 3.51 VG
plates.
Lecture rooms, laboratories
2 and other facilities have 11 24 26 2 0 3.70 VG
natural lighting.
Insufficient lighting
3 5 24 26 6 2 3.38 F
affects my studies.
LRC provides sufficient
4 9 21 26 5 2 3.48 VG
lighting.
Design rooms provide good
5 5 26 24 8 0 3.44 VG
lighting.
 37

Consultation room has a

6 6 18 30 6 3 3.29 F
good lighting.
The students can use
student’s center at any
7 time because it provides 14 22 22 5 0 3.71 VG
sufficient lighting
equipment.
Multi-purpose laboratories
(e.g. scale modeling,
utilities and building
8 4 14 22 8 15 2.75 F
technology) give enough
lighting to use by the
students.
Sufficient lighting
9 5 25 25 5 3 3.38 F
equipment in CADD room.
Audio Visual Room has a
10 6 24 26 7 0 3.46 VG
good lighting equipment.

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD FAIR POOR NO EXPERIENCE

Figure 8. Lighting of the Facilities of the College of

Architecture

As shown on Table 8, the Statement No. 7 “The students

can use student’s center at any time because it provides
sufficient lighting equipment.”, has the highest weighted
mean (3.71) with a verbal interpretation “Very Good”, while
the Statement No. 8 “Multi-purpose laboratories (e.g. scale
 38

modeling, utilities and building technology) give enough

lighting to use by the students.”, has the lowest weighted
mean (2.75) with a verbal interpretation “Fair”.

Table 9. Temperature of the Facilities of the College of

Architecture
C TEMPERATURE 5 4 3 2 1 WM VI
Lecture rooms have enough
cooling equipment (e.g.
1 4 12 21 23 3 2.86 F
ceiling fans, air
condition).
I am comfortable with the
2 temperature of our 4 7 20 27 5 2.65 F
Classroom when drafting.
I can use LRC at ease
3 because of sufficient 6 10 29 12 6 2.97 F
cooling equipment.
The students are
comfortable of using
4 lecture rooms because it 5 11 20 24 3 2.86 F
provides proper cooling
equipment.
Consultation room provides
5 9 13 35 4 2 3.37 F
good temperature.
Students’ center enjoy by
the Architecture students
6 7 14 32 9 1 3.27 F
because it has good
temperature.
Laboratories provide good
7 7 13 30 6 7 3.11 F
temperature.
CADD room has sufficient
8 15 21 22 5 0 3.73 VG
cooling equipment.
Audio-visual room provides
9 17 19 25 2 0 3.81 VG
a good cooling equipment.
The cooling equipment of
10 Faculty and Dean’s office 17 23 19 2 2 3.81 VG
makes me comfortable.
 39

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD FAIR POOR NO EXPERIENCE

Figure 9. Temperature of the Facilities of the College of

Architecture

As shown on Table 9, the Statement No. 9 “Audio-visual

room provides a good cooling equipment.” and the Statement
No. 10 “The cooling equipment of Faculty and Dean’s office
makes me comfortable.”, has the highest weighted mean (3.81)
with a verbal interpretation “Very Good”, while the Statement
No. 2 “I am comfortable with the temperature of our Classroom
when drafting.”, has the lowest weighted mean (2.65) with a
verbal interpretation “Fair”.
 40

Table 10. Color of the Facilities of the College of

Architecture
D COLOR 5 4 3 2 1 WM VI
The color of lecture rooms
1 gives me productivity in 4 22 30 7 0 3.37 F
studying.
The color of Design room
2 improves my creativity in 6 16 29 12 0 3.25 F
designing.
The color of students’
3 center makes me feel cool 6 17 30 10 0 3.30 F
and comfortable.
The color of laboratories
4 enhances my learning 2 15 36 4 6 3.05 F
ability.
The color of AVR attracts
5 5 24 24 10 0 3.38 F
me from learning.
The color of consultation
6 room makes me focus on 3 18 32 9 1 3.21 F
study.
The color of CADD room
7 6 19 32 5 1 3.38 F
gives positive vibes.
The color of exterior wall
8 of Architecture Building is 7 26 23 7 0 3.52 VG
good.
The color of LRC makes me
9 6 14 34 5 4 3.21 F
focus on reading.
The color of Faculty and
10 Dean’s office makes me feel 8 17 30 6 2 3.37 F
welcomed.
The color of the Guidance’s
11 Office makes me comfortable 8 18 32 3 2 3.43 VG
and welcomed.
The color of the gallery
12 4 20 28 6 5 3.19 F
makes me more creative.
The color of the Students’
13 Organization Office makes 8 15 34 4 2 3.37 F
me feel at ease.
 41

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD FAIR POOR NO EXPERIENCE

Figure 10. Color of the Facilities of the College of

Architecture

As shown on Table 10, the Statement No. 8 “The color of

exterior wall of Architecture Building is good.”, has the
highest weighted mean (3.52) with a verbal interpretation
“Very Good”, while the Statement No. 4 “The color of
laboratories enhances my learning ability.”, has the lowest
weighted mean (3.05) with a verbal interpretation “Fair”.

Table 11. Classroom Arrangement of the College of

Architecture
E CLASSROOM ARRANGEMENT 5 4 3 2 1 WM VI
Arrangement of drafting
1 tables and stools are well 1 19 31 12 0 3.14 F
organized.
CADD room’s computer
2 arrangement are well 3 23 29 8 0 3.33 F
organized.
I have the opportunity to
use learning equipment
3 (e.g. white board, marker, 3 28 29 3 0 3.49 VG
projector, etc.) in
Classes.
 42

Classroom arrangements are

4 2 18 33 9 1 3.17 F
well organized.
Drafting room arrangements
5 2 17 32 12 0 3.14 F
are well organized.
The arrangement of Design
rooms’ drafting tables that
6 3 21 28 9 2 3.22 F
facing each other makes me
comfortable in designing.
The arrangement of Design
rooms’ drafting tables that
7 5 22 32 4 0 3.44 VG
facing the professor or
board are better.
The arrangement of Lecture
rooms’ chairs that facing
8 8 19 34 2 0 3.52 VG
the professor or board
makes me focus on studying.
The arrangement of Lecture
9 rooms’ chairs that facing 4 16 33 9 1 3.21 F
each other are comfortable.
I can easily find the
10 Classroom because it has a 10 19 32 2 0 3.59 VG
proper signage.

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD FAIR FAIR NO EXPERIENCE

Figure 11. Classroom Arrangement of the College of

Architecture
 43

As shown on Table 11, the Statement No. 10 “I can easily

find the Classroom because it has a proper signage.”, has the
highest weighted mean (3.59) with a verbal interpretation
“Very Good”, while the Statement No. 1 “Arrangement of
drafting tables and stools are well organized.” and the
Statement No. 5 “Drafting room arrangements are well
organized.”, has the lowest weighted mean (3.14) with a verbal
interpretation “Fair”.
Table 12. Equipment and Tools of the College of
Architecture
F EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS 5 4 3 2 1 WM VI
LRC provides sufficient
books and researching
1 3 23 28 3 6 3.22 F
equipment for researching
or studying purposes.
All students have the
opportunity to use the
2 2 22 30 5 4 3.21 F
tools and equipment in
laboratory.
There are enough necessary
3 chairs and tables for my 5 13 30 14 1 3.11 F
studies.
Lecture rooms have enough
white board/blackboard and
4 7 17 30 8 1 3.33 F
markers /chalk for
discussion.
Consultation room provides
5 enough equipment and tools 4 18 31 8 2 3.22 F
to use.
Students’ center provides
6 3 14 26 18 2 2.97 F
equipment for the students.
Laboratories have the
important equipment and
7 3 19 29 7 5 3.13 F
tools for laboratory
purposes.
CADD room has a good
equipment to use and tools
8 10 21 27 5 0 3.57 VG
that is needed for the
computers.
 44

Design rooms have enough

9 drafting tables and stools 6 16 31 9 1 3.27 F
for the students.
Audio-visual room have
sufficient equipment and
10 8 27 22 6 0 3.59 VG
tools (e.g. projector) that
is needed.
The Guidance’s Office
11 provides tools or equipment 2 20 29 8 4 3.13 F
for emotional students.
Faculty Office provides the
12 needs of the students in 7 24 24 7 1 3.46 VG
terms or learning.

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD FAIR POOR NO EXPERIENCE

Figure 12. Equipment and Tools of the College of

Architecture

As shown on Table 12, the Statement No. 10 “Audio-visual

room have sufficient equipment and tools (e.g. projector)
that is needed.”, has the highest weighted mean (3.59) with
a verbal interpretation “Very Good”, while the Statement No.
6 “Students’ center provides equipment for the students.”,
has the lowest weighted mean (2.97) with a verbal
interpretation “Fair”.
 45

Table 13. Cleaning Services of the College of Architecture

G CLEANING SERVICES 5 4 3 2 1 WM VI
Laboratories are always
1 clean and properly 4 21 25 10 3 3.21 F
maintained.
Comfort rooms are clean and
2 3 14 22 23 1 2.92 F
fresh.
Audio-visual room provides
3 clean and properly 4 23 24 12 0 3.30 F
maintained room.
Sufficient trash bins
4 within the vicinity of the 4 23 27 9 0 3.35 F
department.
Library has trash bins to
5 6 14 34 5 4 3.21 F
use and cleaning materials.
All lecture rooms provide
6 4 21 31 7 0 3.35 F
cleaning materials to use.
Consultation room is always
7 5 22 29 6 1 3.38 F
clean and ready to use.
Students’ centers are tidy
8 4 17 28 13 1 3.16 F
and pleasant.
Design rooms are always
clean and properly
9 2 14 33 12 2 3.03 F
maintained that results to
my good design.

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD FAIR POOR NO EXPERIENCE

Figure 13. Cleaning Services of the College of Architecture

 46

As shown on Table 13, the Statement No. 7 “Consultation

room is always clean and ready to use.”, has the highest
weighted mean (3.38) with a verbal interpretation “Fair”,
while the Statement No. 2 “Comfort rooms are clean and
fresh.”, has the lowest weighted mean (2.92) with a verbal
interpretation “Fair”.

Part IV. Suggestions and Recommendations of Architecture

Students.

Table 14. Suggestions and Recommendations of the

Architecture Students taking Mid-Year Classes 2019
SUGGESTION AND YES NO YES NO YES NO
RECOMMENDATION (F) (F) (RF) (RF) (%) (%)

Additional good lighting

1 in all rooms and 55 8 0.87 0.13 87% 13%
facilities.
Putting acoustic
treatment in all rooms
2 55 8 0.87 0.13 87% 13%
and facilities in order
to lessen noise
Additional ceiling
3 fans/air-conditioner in 57 6 0.90 0.10 90% 10%
all rooms and facilities.
Improve the color of each
rooms and facilities
4 51 12 0.81 0.19 81% 19%
according to area
temperature.
Provide sufficient
equipment for lecture
5 55 8 0.87 0.13 87% 13%
rooms, laboratories, and
facilities.
Provide an improved
6 drafting tables and 89% 11%
stools. 56 7 0.89 0.11
Additional cleaning
7 materials in all rooms 58 5 0.92 0.08 92% 8%
and facilities.
A better arrangement of
8 drafting tables and 50 13 0.79 0.21 79% 21%
armchairs/chairs in all
 47

rooms and
Provide laboratories for
scale modeling, building
9 57 6 0.90 0.10 90% 10%
utilities, building
technology, and others.
Additional learning
10 78% 22%
rooms and facilities. 49 14 0.78 0.22
A more comfortable
11 entrance in Guidance 78% 22%
office. 49 14 0.78 0.22
Additional fans or air-
12 conditioner in Students’ 50 13 0.79 0.21 79% 21%
Organizations Office.
Separated office for
13 43 20 0.68 0.32 68% 32%
College’s Dean’s Office.
Additional equipment and
14 cleaning materials in 56 7 0.89 0.11 89% 11%
comfort rooms.
A waiting area for
15 students or others in 51 12 0.81 0.19 81% 19%
Faculty Office.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

YES NO

Figure 14. Suggestions and Recommendations of the

Architecture Students taking Mid-Year Classes 2019
 48

As shown on Table 14, the highest percentage among the

suggested and recommended factors is the Statement No. 7
“Additional cleaning materials in all rooms and facilities.”
which has 92%, while the lowest percentage among the suggested
and recommended factors is the Statement No. 13 “Separated
office for College’s Dean’s Office.” that has 68%.

Other Suggestions and Recommendations of the Students

According to the gathered data, the other suggestions
and recommendations of the respondents are the following:
1. Lighting control and heat control.
2. Especially in building B, the color and style of the
rooms is not conductive for learning. The professors
should further assess the color of rooms in accordance
to each room’s function.
3. Provide proper parking space for the students of College
of Architecture or put pavement to avoid dirt on floor.
4. Provide Drinking fountain.
5. Additional sun shading devices such as vertical or
horizontal fins for the building b which enables to block
excessive heat from the sun penetration, trees as well.
6. Comfort room must have adequate soap for hand-washing.
7. Additional projectors for PPT of the reporters.
8. Provide Air-condition in every drafting rooms.
9. A new building for the growing numbers of architecture
students in NEUST.
 49

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter, all the result of the study will be

presented in a brief generalized problems and findings, the
conclusion and also the recommendations of the data gathered
throughout the study.

Summary of Findings
The findings were formulated through a thorough
investigation and collection of data.

The Profile of the Respondents

1. In the year level of the respondents that are currently
taking the Mid-Year Classes 2019, are mostly from the 4th
year which has a percentage of 60.32% of the total
percentage; second, the 5th year and the year that are
taking architecture greater than 5 years has a 15.87% of
the total percentage; third, the 3rd year has an 7.93% of
the total percentage; and lastly, the 1st year and 2nd year
levels have no available respondents during the Mid-Year
Classes 2019.
2. Most of the respondents are female which has a 59% of
the total percentage while the male which has a 41% of the
total percentage.
3. The academic standing of the respondents are all
irregular students which has a 100% of the total
percentage.

List of Facilities Required for College of Architecture.

The highest percentage among the existing facilities of
the College of Architecture are the Lecture Rooms, Students’
Center, Dean’s Office and Comfort Rooms that got 100% while
the highest percentage that is not existing with a percentage
of 51% is the Multi-Purpose Laboratory (e.g. scale modeling,
utilities and building technology) and the second is the
Conference Room which has a percentage of 43%.
 50

Evaluation of Architecture Students to the Facilities and

Environment of College of Architecture
1. The acoustic factor of the facilities that has the
highest weighted mean of 3.62 is the Statement No. 10 “The
sounds from Audio Visual Room (AVR) are understandably in
any corner of the room.”; while, the Statement No. 5 “The
noise came from the corridor distracts me from doing my
plates.” has a weighted mean of 3.56; the statement no. 3
“The noise came from the corridor distracts me from doing
my plates.” has a weighted mean of 3.49; the Statement No.
7 “CADD room has a good sound treatment.” has a weighted
mean of 3.46; the Statement No. 9 “We clearly hear each
other in Students’ Organization Office.” has a weighted
mean of 3.43; the Statement No. 4 “Consultation room has
a good sound treatment.” has a weighted mean of 3.35; the
Statement No. 12 “Consultation room has a good sound
treatment.” has a weighted mean of 3.29; the Statement No.
1 “I can peacefully enjoy the LRC because of good sound
treatment.” has a weighted mean of 3.22; the Statement No.
2 “I use design room in harmony because of good sound
treatment.” has a weighted mean of 3.17; the Statement No.
6 “The noise of other class from the next room distracts
me from studying.” has a weighted mean of 3.00; the
Statement No. 8 “The sounds in gallery area has a good
sound treatment.” has a weighted mean of 2.87; lastly, the
Statement No. 11 “The noise came from vehicles outside
loses my focus on studying.” has the lowest weighted mean
of 2.79.

2. The lighting factor of the facilities that has the

highest weighted mean of 3.71 is the Statement No. 7 “The
students can use student’s center at any time because it
provides sufficient lighting equipment.”; while, the
Statement No. 2 “Lecture rooms, laboratories and other
facilities have natural lighting.” has a weighted mean of
3.70; the Statement No. 1 “The lecture rooms have enough
lighting when doing plates.” has a weighted mean of 3.51;
the Statement No. 4 “LRC provides sufficient lighting.”
has a weighted mean of 3.48; the Statement No. 10 “Audio
Visual Room has a good lighting equipment.” has a weighted
 51

mean of 3.46; the Statement No. 5 “Design rooms provide

good lighting.” has a weighted mean of 3.44; the Statement
No. 3 “Insufficient lighting affects my studies.” and 9
“Sufficient lighting equipment in CADD room.” has a
weighted mean of 3.38; the Statement No. 6 “Consultation
room has a good lighting.” has a weighted mean of 3.29;
lastly, the Statement No. 8 “Multi-purpose laboratories
(e.g. scale modeling, utilities and building technology)
give enough lighting to use by the students.” has the
lowest weighted mean of 2.75.

3. The temperature of the facilities that has the highest

weighted mean of 3.81 is the Statement No. 9 “Audio-visual
room provides a good cooling equipment.” and Statement No.
10 “The cooling equipment of Faculty and Dean’s office
makes me comfortable.”; while, the Statement No. 8 “CADD
room has sufficient cooling equipment.” has a weighted
mean of 3.73; the Statement No. 5 “Consultation room
provides good temperature.” has a weighted mean of 3.37;
the Statement No. 6 “Students’ center enjoy by the
Architecture students because it has good temperature.”
has a weighted mean of 3.27; the Statement No. 7
“Laboratories provide good temperature.” has a weighted
mean of 3.11; the Statement No. 3 “I can use LRC at ease
because of sufficient cooling equipment.” has a weighted
mean of 2.97; the Statement No. 1 “Lecture rooms have
enough cooling equipment (e.g. ceiling fans, air
condition).” and 4 “The students are comfortable of using
lecture rooms because it provides proper cooling
equipment.” has a weighted mean of 2.86; lastly, the
Statement No. 2 “I am comfortable with the temperature of
our classroom when drafting.” has the lowest weighted mean
of 2.65.

4. The color of the facilities that has the highest

weighted mean of 3.52 is the Statement No. 8 “The color of
exterior wall of Architecture Building is good.”; while,
the Statement No. 11 “The color of the Guidance’s Office
makes me comfortable and welcomed.” has a weighted mean of
3.42; the Statement No. 5 “The color of AVR attracts me
 52

from learning.” and 7 “The color of CADD room gives

positive vibes.” has a weighted mean of 3.38; the Statement
No. 1 “The color of lecture rooms gives me productivity in
studying.”, 10 “The color of Faculty and Dean’s office
makes me feel welcomed.” and 13 “The color of the Students’
Organization Office makes me feel at ease.” has a weighted
mean of 3.37; the Statement No. 3 “The color of students’
center makes me feel cool and comfortable.” has a weighted
mean of 3.30; the Statement No. 2 “The color of Design
room improves my creativity in designing.” has a weighted
mean of 3.25; the Statement No. 6 “The color of
consultation room makes me focus on study.” and 9 “The
color of LRC makes me focus on reading.” has a weighted
mean of 3.21; the Statement No. 12 “The color of the
gallery makes me more creative.” has a weighted mean of
3.09; lastly, the Statement No. 4 “The color of
laboratories enhances my learning ability.” has the lowest
weighted mean of 3.05.

5. The Classroom arrangement of the College of

Architecture that has the highest weighted mean of 3.59 is
the Statement No. 10 “I can easily find the classroom
because it has a proper signage.”; while, the Statement
No. 8 “The arrangement of Lecture rooms’ chairs that facing
the professor or board makes me focus on studying.” has a
weighted mean of 3.52; the Statement No. 3 “I have the
opportunity to use learning equipment (e.g. white board,
marker, projector, etc.) in class.” has a weighted mean of
3.49; the Statement No. 7 “The arrangement of Design rooms’
drafting tables that facing the professor or board are
better.” has a weighted mean of 3.44; the Statement No. 2
“CADD room’s computer arrangement are well organized.” has
a weighted mean of 3.33; the Statement No. 6 “The
arrangement of Design rooms’ drafting tables that facing
each other makes me comfortable in designing.” has a
weighted mean of 3.22; the Statement No. 9 “The arrangement
of Lecture rooms’ chairs that facing each other are
comfortable.” has a weighted mean of 3.21; the Statement
No. 4 “Classroom arrangements are well organized.” has a
weighted mean of 3.17; lastly, the Statement No. 1
 53

“Arrangement of drafting tables and stools are well

organized.” and Statement No. 5 “Drafting room
arrangements are well organized.” has the lowest weighted
mean of 3.14.

6. The equipment and tools of the College of Architecture

that has the highest weighted mean of 3.59 is the Statement
No. 10 “Audio-visual room have sufficient equipment and
tools (e.g. projector) that is needed.”; while, the
Statement No. 8 “CADD room has a good equipment to use and
tools that is needed for the computers.” has a weighted
mean of 3.57; the Statement No. 12 “Faculty Office provides
the needs of the students in terms or learning.” has a
weighted mean of 3.46; the Statement No. 4 “Lecture rooms
have enough white board/blackboard and markers /chalk for
discussion.” has a weighted mean of 3.33; the Statement
No. 9 “Design rooms have enough drafting tables and stools
for the students.” has a weighted mean of 3.27; the
Statement No. 1 “LRC provides sufficient books and
researching equipment for researching or studying
purposes.” and 5 “Consultation room provides enough
equipment and tools to use.” has a weighted mean of 3.22;
the Statement No. 2 “All students have the opportunity to
use the tools and equipment in laboratory.” has a weighted
mean of 3.21; the Statement No. 7 “Laboratories have the
important equipment and tools for laboratory purposes.”
and 11 “The Guidance’s Office provides tools or equipment
for emotional students.” has a weighted mean of 3.13; the
Statement No. 3 “There are enough necessary chairs and
tables for my studies.” has a weighted mean of 3.11;
lastly, the Statement No. 6 “Students’ center provides
equipment for the students.” has the lowest weighted mean
of 2.97.

7. The cleaning services of the College of Architecture

that has the highest weighted mean of 3.38 is the Statement
No. 7 “Consultation room is always clean and ready to
use.”; while, the Statement No. 4 “Sufficient trash bins
within the vicinity of the department.” and 6 “All lecture
rooms provide cleaning materials to use.” has a weighted
 54

mean of 3.35; the Statement No. 3 “Audio-visual room

provides clean and properly maintained room.” has a
weighted mean of 3.30; the Statement No. 1 “Laboratories
are always clean and properly maintained.” and 5 “Library
has trash bins to use and cleaning materials.” has a
weighted mean of 3.21; the Statement No. 8 “Students’
centers are tidy and pleasant.” has a weighted mean of
3.16; the Statement No. 9 “Design rooms are always clean
and properly maintained that results to my good design.”
has a weighted mean of 3.03; lastly, the Statement No. 2
“Comfort rooms are clean and fresh.” has the lowest
weighted mean of 2.92.

Suggestion and Recommendation of Architecture Students

The highest percentage among the suggested and
recommended factors is the Statement No. 7 “Additional
cleaning materials in all rooms and facilities.” which has
92%, while the lowest percentage among the suggested and
recommended factors is the Statement No. 13 “Separated office
for College’s Dean’s Office.” that has 68%.

Other Suggestions and Recommendations of the Students

The other suggestions and recommendations of the
respondents are lighting control and heat control; the color
and style of the rooms in the Building B is not conductive for
learning; provide proper parking space for the students of
College of Architecture or put pavement to avoid dirt on
floor, drinking fountain, additional sun shading devices,
air-conditioning systems in every drafting rooms and
additional projectors; adequate soap for hand-washing for the
Comfort Rooms; and new building for the growing numbers of
architecture students in NEUST.
 55

Conclusions
Based on the summary of findings, the researchers
conclude that:
1. Most of the respondents are from the 4th year level while
the least are from the year that are taking architecture
greater than 5 years. Majority of them are female and
all of them are irregular academic standing student.
2. There are facilities that are not existing such as the
Multi-Purpose Laboratory (e.g. scale modeling, utilities
and building technology) and Conference Room.
3. The factors of the College of Architecture such as:
a. In terms of the Acoustics of the facilities, it
should focus on improving the noise penetration
because most of the students are distracted from
the noise coming from the vehicles outside.
b. In terms of the Lighting of the facilities, it
should focus on providing Multi-Purpose
laboratories (e.g. scale modeling, utilities and
building technology) and improving the laboratories
(e.g. visual room) because it doesn’t provide
enough lighting that should be used by the
students.
c. In terms of the Temperature of the facilities, it
should focus on providing cooling equipment (e.g.
air-conditioning systems, ceiling fans) to achieve
the thermal comfort that the student needs.
d. In terms of the Color of the facilities, it should
focus on enhancing the color of the laboratories to
motivate the students to study well.
e. In terms of the Classroom Arrangement, it should
focus on organizing the drafting rooms and also
improve the placement of the drafting tables and
stools inside the room.
f. In terms of the Equipment and tools, it should focus
on providing the equipment that is suited for the
Students’ centers.
 56

g. In terms of the Cleaning Services, it should focus

on improving cleanliness and freshness factor of
the Comfort rooms.
4. The most suggested and recommended improvement for the
learning environment of the College of Architecture is
the additional cleaning materials that will maintain the
cleanliness of the environment.
5. Based on the observation of the researchers, that some
of the students are not aware of the existing and non-
existing facilities of the College of Architecture. They
should be informed by the facilitators that there are
existing facilities that they might not recognize
because there are facilities that are restricted to
limited people only.
6. According to the results on the findings through
questionnaires the researchers conclude that the effect
of learning environment in different factors was
affecting their academic performances resulting to a
distracted mood while studying or doing plates.

Recommendations
Based on the Conclusions, these are some recommendations
formulated by the researchers:
 For the future researchers, further research shall be
conducted to enhance the study.
 To help the students in learning, the learning facilities
should have a good acoustics that will not distract the
students from noise coming from the cars and other students
 To enlighten the mood of the students in learning, provide
enough lighting because it can also attract them to listen
to the professor.
 To have a good and fresh mind, provide enough cooling
equipment such as air-conditioning systems and ceiling
fans. Based from the suggestion and recommendation of the
respondents, provide sun shading devices because the
orientation of the buildings facing west which causes too
much heat that will cause discomfort for the students.
 57

 To have a good circulation inside the facilities, it should

have a good desk, table and stools arrangements.
 To have a good and clean learning environment, provide
cleaning equipment and tools that will be used by the
students and the janitor.
 Based from the suggestion and recommendation of the
respondents, avoid distracting colors of paint and too much
decorations inside the facilities because it will catch
the attention of the students.
 Based from the suggestion and recommendation of the
respondents, provide drinking fountains, additional
parking spaces and projectors, and hand wash for the
Comfort rooms.
 58

REFERENCES

Alhussain, D., Loudon, G. and Wilgeroth, P. (2016)

'Creativity in Product Design Education: Understanding The
Learning Environment', In DS 83: Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference on Engineering and Product Design
Education (E&PDE16), Design Education: Collaboration and
Cross-Disciplinarity, Aalborg, Denmark, 8th-9th September
2016, pp. 102-107 http://hdl.handle.net/10369/9549
Apter, M. J. (1984). Reversal Theory and Personality: A
Review. J. Res. Pers. 18, 265–288. doi: 10.1016/0092-
6566(84)90013-8
Apter, M. J. (1989). Reversal Theory: Motivation, Emotion and
Personality. Florence, KY, US: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
Apter, M. J. (2014). Towards A Theory of Things: Reversal
Theory and Design. J. Motiv. Emot. Pers. 2, 3–11. doi:
10.12689/jmep.2014.302
Assessment of Student Learning. https://www.antioch.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/Policy-on-Assessment-of-Student-
Learning.pdf
Barrett, Peter, et al. "The Impact of Classroom Design on
Pupils' Learning: Final Results of A Holistic, Multi-Level
Analysis." Building and Environment 89 (2015): 118-133.
Biesta, G. (2011) From Learning Cultures to Educational
Cultures: Values and Judgements in Educational Research and
Educational Improvement, International Journal of Early
Childhood, 43(3), 199–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13158-
011-0042-x
Brooks, D. C. (2011), Space matters: The Impact of Formal
Learning Environments on Student Learning. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 42: 719-726. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2010.01098.x
O'Neill, D. J., & Oates, A. D. (2001). The Impact of School
Facilities on Student Achievement, Behavior, Attendance, and
Teacher Turnover Rate in Central Texas Middle Schools.
Educational Facility Planner, 36(3), 14-22.
Byers, Terry, Wesley Imms, and Elizabeth Hartnell-Young.
"Making The Case for Space: The Effect of Learning Spaces on
 59

Teaching and Learning." Curriculum and Teaching 29.1 (2014):

5-19.
Cheryan, Sapna, et al. "Designing Classrooms to Maximize
Student Achievement." Policy Insights from the Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 1.1 (2014): 4-12.
Chapman, A., Randell-Moon, H., Campbell, M., & Drew, C.,
(2014). Students in Space: Student Practices in Non-
Traditional Classrooms, doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2014.4.1.39
CHED Memorandum Order No. 61 Series of 2017. Policies,
Standards and Guidelines for the Bachelor of Science in
Architecture. https://ched.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/CMO-No.-61-Series-2017-Policies-
Standards-and-Guidelines-for-the-Bachelor-of-Science-in-
Architecture-BS-Archi.pdf
Crooks, T. J. (1998), The Impact of Classroom Evaluation
Practices on Students.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543058004
438
Crossman, A. (2019), Understanding Purposive Sampling.
https://www.thoughtco.com/purposive-sampling-3026727
Douglas, D., and Gifford, R. (2001). Evaluation of the
Physical Classroom by Students and Professors: A Lens Model
Approach. Educ. Res. 43, 295–309. doi:
10.1080/00131880110081053
Dudek, M. (2000) Architecture of Schools: The New Learning
Environments. Oxford: Architectural Press.
http://architecturalnetworks.research.mcgill.ca/assets/arch
itecure-of-schools_the-new-learning--min.pdf
Dusitnanond, A. (2007), Developing a Method of Teaching
Architectural Project Design: A Case Study of Third Year
Studio Project, Faculty of Architecture, Sriburapha
University, Thailand
http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1571/1/Dusitnanond.pdf
Earthman G. I. (2002), School Facility Conditions and Student
Academic Achievement.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5sw56439
Fareo, D. O. & Ojo O. O. (2012), Impact of Facilities On
Academic Performance of Students with Special Needs in
 60

Mainstreamed Public Schools in Southwestern Nigeria.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01228.x
Faulkner, J., Bradley, K. D., and Lumpp, J. K., Broadening
The Roles of School Psychologists Through an Evaluation of
Learning Environments: A Pilot Study.
http://www.uky.edu/~kdbrad2/SchoolPsych.pdf
Figueroa, L., Lim, S., & Lee, J. (2016): Investigating the
Relationship Between School Facilities and Academic
Achievements Through Geographically Weighted Regression,
Annals of GIS, DOI: 10.1080/19475683.2016.
Fisher, K. (2005). Research into Identifying Effective
Learning Environments. Evaluating Qual. Educ. Facil. 9, 159–
167.
Gee, L., (2006), Human-Centered Design Guidelines.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/710b/d63721f4f089df1143752
b2b106238ff57fb.pdf
Great Schools Partnership (2013), The Glossary of Education
Reform. https://www.edglossary.org/learning-environment/
How Classroom Design Affects Learning? Connecting Elements
(2016), https://www.connectingelements.com/our-blog/how-
classroom-design-affects-learning
Jamie Hale, M.S, (2018), The Basic Types of Descriptive
Reserch Method. https://psychcentral.com/blog/the-3-basic-
types-of-descriptive-research-methods/
Lackney, J. A., & Picus, L. O. (2005), School Facilities:
Overview, Maintenance and Modernization of.
https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2394/School-
Facilities.html
Learning Facilities, Bournemouth University (2019).
https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/facilitie
s/learning-facilities
Lewinski, P. (2015). Effects of Classrooms’ Architecture on
Academic Performance in View of Telic Versus Paratelic
Motivation: A Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, [746].
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00746
Limon, M. R. (2016), The Effect of the Adequacy of School
Facilities on Students’ Performance and Achievement in
 61

Technology and Livelihood Education.

http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v5-i1/2058
Mcgowen, R. S. (2007), The Impact of School Facilities on
Student Achievement, Attendance, Behavior, Completion Rate
and Teacher Turnover Rate in Selected Texas High Schools.
http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ET
D-TAMU-2054/MCGOWEN-DISSERTATION.pdf?sequence=1
Morgatroyd, S., Rushton, C., Apter, M. & Ray, C. (1978) The
Development of the Telic Dominance Scale, Journal of
Personality Assessment, 42:5, 519-528, DOI:
10.1207/s15327752jpa4205_14
Olaleye, E. O., (2013), Classroom Design and Learning
Environment as Predictors of Pre-Service Teachers’
Performance in Fine and Applied Arts in Colleges of Education
in Southwestern Nigeria.
http://ir.library.ui.edu.ng/handle/123456789/3677
Philippine basic education: Adequacy of School Facilities in
Philippine Public Schools (2015).
http://erlinda0429.blogspot.com/
Quality on Vet-Schools, (2005), Student Satisfaction
Questionnaire Test Version.
https://www.oph.fi/download/133510_efqm_ssq_en.pdf
School Building Assessment Methods.
http://www.ncef.org/pubs/sanoffassess.pdf
Stone, N. (2001). Designing Effective Study Environments. J.
Environ. Psychol. 21, 179–190. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2000.0193
Temple, P., (2007). Learning Spaces for the 21st Century.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Temple2/publicati
on/237472897_Learning_spaces_for_the_21st_century_A_review_
of_the_literature/links/02e7e52ce7883a7ed3000000/Learning-
spaces-for-the-21st-century-A-review-of-the-literature.pdf
Urdan, T. & Schoenfelder, E. (2006), Classroom Effects On
Student Motivation: Goal Structures, Social Relationships,
And Competence Beliefs.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.003
Woolner, P., Hall, E., et al. (2007). A Sound Foundation?
What We Know About the Impact of Environments On Learning and
 62

The Implications for Building Schools for the Future. Oxford

Review of Education, 33(1), 47-70.
World Bank Group. 2016. Building Better Learning Environments
in the Philippines. Philippines education note,no. 4;. World
Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24744
License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
Yin Cheong Cheng (1994) Classroom Environment and Student
Affective Performance: An Effective Profile, The Journal of
Experimental Education, 62:3, 221-239, DOI:
10.1080/00220973.1994.9943842
63